On May 12 and 13, I was invited to be part of a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat workshop that was called by the DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian sister agency to NOAA) to assess the Canadian government’s mitigation measures to protect marine mammals from noise impacts of seismic surveys used to explore for offshore oil and gas. Thanks to my previous involvement in the Ocean Noise Coalition, a Canadian ONC member recommended that I be invited—thanks, Kathy! Longtime ONC colleague Michael Stocker of Ocean Conservation Research was also there, and we shared some nice rambles around the city. The two-day workshop included a day of “working papers” in which various participants shared research and information meant to inform our assessment of how well marine mammal observers, safety zones, and passive acoustic monitoring perform in their goals of protecting marine mammals from the effects of seismic survey noise. Most of the 40+ participants work for agencies, oil and gas companies or trade groups, or for environmental consultants who write EISs or manage marine mammal observing operations for seismic survey companies. Four of us were from the “environmental community,” and of those, I was the only one to present a working paper.

Other papers of particular note included several that spelled out the many weather-related conditions that severely limit the ability of on-board Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) to actually see whales; even slight choppiness reduces effective sighting rates from close to 100% down to below 50%, not to mention fog. Also striking, though less surprising, was that experienced observers generally see twice as many whales as new observers; this is an issue, as many survey vessels use relatively inexperienced observers. The need for a more substantial and certified training program was also stressed. Finally, a fair amount of discussion revolved around the fact that sound propagation is far less consistent than has been assumed, with most survey operators and regulators now aware that seafloor depth and sound bouncing from several directions can create high sound levels at many kilometers from active survey vessels, which complicates efforts to protect whales from harm. New initiatives from the Joint Industry Partnership (JIP), funded by a consortium of oil companies, include detailed studies of sound propagation as well as more rigorous observer training and standardized observer reporting forms. In addition, the trade organization for the contractors who do the actual seismic surveys, the IAGC, has an increasingly diverse environmental assessment and compliance program.

On the second day of the workshop, the group honed the basic outline of a Technical Report that will inform the DFO’s continuing efforts to improve mitigation measures over time. The sessions were ably piloted by the DFO’s Jake Rice, who insured that each comment made around the table was heard and acknowledged as the drafting of the Technical Report proceeded. Rapport and respect between the diverse stakeholders present was, by all accounts, much more positive than what has often occurred in the past; it feels as if all the players are coming to understand that their own perspective is not absolutely “right” (or does not need to be vehemently defended) and that the best path forward is to acknowledge the priorities of all parties. It was my first experience as a participant in a major agency workshop such as this, and I came away feeling honored to have been asked to participate, and aware that I had contributed key pieces to the discussion and to the final report.

3 Responses to “AEI in the World: DFO seismic mitigation meeting”

[…] of many others about the effects of survey noise on wildlife (see this recent AEI presentation to a Canadian government advisory meeting, focusing on questions about surveys disrupting foraging activity). Six different geophysical […]

[…] in Alaskan waters). The 7km exclusion zone is rather shocking, as only last May I participated in a DFO seismic mitigation expert committee meeting at which the oil and gas industry and agency staff were fully content with 500m exclusion zones, […]

[…] What is unclear, though, is how (if at all) oil and gas exploration activities might change after going through these proper legal challenges. The US Navy now prepares full Environmental Impact Statements for all of its active sonar training areas, and receive IHAs from NOAA, but this legal compliance has not reduced their training activities or succeeded in putting any biologically rich areas off limits–in effect, NOAA has issued the permits after long official assessments that the activities have no significant impacts. LIkewise, the oil and gas industry does have procedures in place to reduce sound output when animals are (very) close, and research into the behavioral effects of noise exposure at greater distances (lower sound levels) is ambiguous, though concerning. See this earlier post about AEI’s work in this area, assessing research about behavioral impac…. […]

Leave a Reply

Name

Email (not required and not published)

Website

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.